Metaphysics and Aesthetics

So you all may have noticed that many of the theorists have wildly different views concerning aesthetics, and so it may not surprise you to hear that these largely come out of their varying ontological and metaphysical views (i.e. understanding of what exists and the systems affecting it). We have alluded to many of the relevant metaphysical views, but it may be helpful to provide a quick summary for clarification and later reference.

Plato: Many of you have had Plato's theory of the forms beat into you from various places, so this will be brief. According to Plato, spiritual substance is the only “real” stuff in the universe, and exists as the Forms. The material world that we perceive is only a shadow of these forms which we perceive through limited sensory and cognitive faculties. The cognitive faculties can be elevated since they are essentially spiritual, but the sensory faculties are only useful in perceiving the material world. At best they give us incomplete impressions of the forms.

In terms of aesthetics, art only further removes us from the Forms through μίμησις (i.e. mimicking/imitation). If one wanted to learn about human anatomy, he/she would not use a doll. The implicit moral maxim for humanity is to move closer to true reality, and therefore one must distinguish between the permanent and the impermanent.

Aristotle: Though Aristotle was sympathetic to the idea of Forms, he did not take them to be something separate from the material world. Instead, Aristotelian forms exist within each particular thing. Forms are a binding principle, more akin to a blueprint. This suggests an even larger binding force, or ultimate Form which Aristotle identifies with the immovable mover, or God. God is the first cause, which sets matter in motion and gives form to everything that exists. It is all like an intricate machine. As such, each existing thing has a function within the whole, (i.e. τέλος). A good thing is one that performs its function excellently.

The function of the human being is to live a rational life. Reason dictates a number of virtues, such as wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice, but these all ultimately support the rational activity. Likewise, art functions to support this rational life through κάθαρσις, or the relieving of passions. By relieving the passions, one is able to focus on rational projects.

Augustine: Augustine's metaphysics are probably at least somewhat familiar to everyone, since they are grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Everything that exists proceeds from the creative action of God and exists for the glory of God. Human beings have within in them the image of God, which is generally taken to be the rational, creative mind.

To perform art is to create as God creates. It is an act of worship and recognition of the beauty of Creation. The difference between God's Creation and human art is that the former occurs ex nihilo (i.e. out of nothing), while the latter is simply a restructuring of what is. As such, all human art is a sign of something that God has already created, whether it be a physical thing or abstract concept.

Maimonides: Though proceeding out of a similar tradition as Augustine, Maimonides has slightly different views regarding the transcendent nature of God. In this sense, Maimondies is to Augustine as Plato is to Aristotle. Maimonides sees God as wholly above His Creation and as such, beyond philosophic analytical distinction. God can be apprehended, but only through more direct, intuitive communion. We experience God, but God cannot be contained within the mind of man. This is not to say that Augustine believes that God can be wholly comprehended, but he does think that we can say certain thing about God through reason.

Because Maimonides holds God and Creation to be beyond analytical distinction, he thinks that meaning/definition becomes an ambiguous and largely nebulous project. Again, this is not to say that it is wholly worthless, but the answers are neither clear nor concise. Knowledge may come and go as quick as a flash of lightning. Through empirical activity we come to know God, but this knowledge is not like the knowledge of a fact, but more akin to an acquaintance with God. It is a relational knowledge.

Christine de Pizan: Yet another writer coming out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Christian Tradition, like Aristotle, holds the Creation to be orderly. This order extends to varying degrees depending of what particular Christian tradition one comes from, but the ancients and early medievals focused quite a bit on essential natures. This extends even to particular natures of men and women.

De Pizan's feminist critique centers largely around the grotesque misapprehension of the feminine nature that had evolved from an increasingly ascetic focus within Christianity. A key characteristic of Christian asceticism was the denial of sexual passions. As such, the patriarchal structure of the Church increasingly saw women as malevolent temptresses and necessary evils. De Pizan sought to return to an earlier view of women as the helper and companion of Adam, equal in glory but different in kind. She is not so progressive as later feminists who sought to erase all distinctions between men and women; rather, she focused on what it means to be a virtuous woman.

Sir Philip Sidney: Sidney, like Augustine, understands art to be a type of worship as well as a virtuous activity. He is profoundly affected by many figures within the western tradition, including Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. As such, Sidney holds beauty and truth to within the universals, but also within the content of human experience. He identifies heavily with Aristotle here, seeing the universals in the particular and seeing the apprehension of these as leading toward a virtuous life. The application of wisdom towards this end he calls αρχιτεκτονική. The poet seeks to “teach and delight,” as he says or to, “affirm the rule of justice and order,” according to the Norton Anthology.

Ultimately, Sidney makes a distinction between philosophers, historians, and poets. He asserts that between philosophers and historians, philosophers have the more valuable enterprise as they focus on universals while historians only focus on particulars. As such, philosophers conceive of what the end of man is, while historians only say what has happened. Unfortunately, the abstractions of philosophers often leave the layman (and often the philosophers themselves) at a complete loss as to how to apply universals to everyday life. The poet rises above both, however, in that he crafts universals into particular stories in order to ground them in human experience.

These figures will have to suffice for now as other homework is demanding my attentions. Later figures will have to wait for a later post.